Courtney v. Doyle
This text of 92 Mass. 122 (Courtney v. Doyle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The note did not on its face import a consideration. It was therefore necessary for the plaintiff to prove that it was given for value at the time it was signed by the defendant Lizzie G. Doyle. This the evidence did not show. On the contrary, the note had long previously been given by the other promisor for a consideration passing between her and the plaintiff. No new consideration existed or was received or paid when the defendant Lizzie G. signed the note. The effect of her signature was, that she became a party to a previously existing contract made on a consideration wholly past and executed., There was no new contract and no new or additional consideration, when the defendant Lizzie G. signed the note. Under such circumstances, on familiar and well settled principles, she cannot be held on the promise. As to her, it was without consideration. Green v. Shepherd, 5 Allen, 389, and cases cited.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
92 Mass. 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courtney-v-doyle-mass-1865.